1. Appeal by plaintiffs in defamation suit against refusal to award damages after finding of liability. (Para 2 , 3 , 12 )
Back
Next 
2026 MarsdenLR 299
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
SEOW HOCK PENG, JC
LIM HENG LOONG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
TAMILARASI BALASUNDRAM – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: BA-12B-79-08/2025]
Petitioner Advocates:Jonas Lee Fook Khong,Wong Sher Yi ,Respondent Advocate: Rasvinder Kaur Sodhi
In a defamation suit actionable per se, damages are presumed and must be awarded; an apology issued only after trial does not constitute sufficient compensation without monetary damages.
Headnote:(A) Defamation - Actionable per se - General Damages and Aggravated Damages - Factors for determining quantum of damages - Apology as vindication. (Paras 20-22, 24-27, 30-35)
(B) Damages - Assessment - The court has wide discretion in awarding damages; defamation is actionable per se, meaning damage is presumed; evidence of actual harm is admissible but not required - Factors for assessing damages include the position and standing of the plaintiff, gravity of the libel, mode and extent of publication, mental distress, conduct of the defendant, and absence of an apology. (Paras 20-22)
(C) Apology - An apology issued only after trial is insufficient as full vindication; a true apology must be an unconditional public retraction and admission of fault in terms acceptable to the plaintiff. (Paras 24-27, 34-35)
Facts of the case:
The first plaintiff was the father of the second and third plaintiffs. The fourth plaintiff was the third plaintiff's girlfriend. The fifth plaintiff was the fourth plaintiff's brother. The sixth plaintiff worked for the fourth plaintiff. All plaintiffs owned units in a condominium. The defendant also owned a unit and was a former committee member of the management corporation. Following disagreements over elections for the management corporation, the defendant published a defamatory statement on 28 July 2022 in three WhatsApp groups, alleging the plaintiffs would abuse their position if elected. The Sessions Court Judge found the defendant liable for defamation but awarded no damages, ordering only an apology and injunctions. The plaintiffs appealed the denial of damages.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the Sessions Court Judge erred in not awarding damages because defamation is actionable per se, and damage is presumed. The court awarded a global sum of RM60,000.00 in general damages and RM15,000.00 in aggravated damages due to malice and refusal to apologize. The court also ordered the apology to be an unconditional public retraction and admission of fault in terms acceptable to the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issues were whether a plaintiff in a defamation claim must prove actual damage to be awarded damages, and whether an order for an apology alone constitutes sufficient compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that defamation is actionable per se, meaning proof of actual harm is not required; the law presumes damage from a defamatory statement. An apology issued only after trial, without retraction or early admission, is insufficient compensation. The proper remedy includes both monetary damages to vindicate the plaintiff's reputation and a public, unconditional apology.
Result: The plaintiffs' appeal was allowed. The plaintiffs were awarded RM60,000.00 in general damages and RM15,000.00 in aggravated damages. The defendant was ordered to issue an unconditional public apology in terms acceptable to the plaintiffs, published in the notice board and the three WhatsApp groups. The order for removal of the impugned statement was disallowed, but the prohibitory injunction was maintained. Costs of RM4,000.00 were awarded to the plaintiffs.
Result: Appeal allowed with orders for damages and a specific apology.
Result: Appeal allowed with orders for damages and a specific apology.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs argued damages are actionable per se; defendant argued court discretion requires proof of actual loss. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Appeal allowed; general and aggravated damages awarded; unconditional apology ordered. (Para 35 , 36 )
4. Is defamation actionable per se without proof of actual harm?
Yes, defamation is actionable per se; damage is presumed and no proof of actual loss is required. (Para 20 , 21 , 23 )
5. Is an apology alone sufficient compensation for defamation?
No, an apology alone is insufficient if not made immediately after publication; after trial, damages are needed for vindication. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
6. What factors determine the quantum of damages in defamation?
Factors include plaintiff's standing, gravity of libel, extent of publication, mental distress, conduct of defendant, and absence of apology. (Para 21 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
7. What constitutes a proper apology in a defamation case?
A proper apology must be an unconditional public retraction and admission of fault in terms acceptable to the plaintiff. (Para 34 , 35 )
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] In this judgment, the parties shall be referred to as if they were in the Sessions Court.
[2] This is an appeal by the Plaintiffs against the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge ("SCJ") on 31 July 2025 (after trial) to allow the Plaintiffs' claim.
[3] The Plaintiffs' appeal is against the SCJ's decision not to award damages.
[4] After perusal of the cause papers and after hearing submissions from the counsels, I have decided to allow the Plaintiffs' appeal with costs based on the reasonings which I shall explain further.
Background Facts
[5] The 1st Plaintiff is the father to the 2nd Plaintiff and 3rd Plaintiff. The 4th Plaintiff is the 3rd Plaintiff's girlfriend. The 5th Plaintiff is the 4th Plaintiff's brother. The 6th Plaintiff is working for the 4th Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs collectively own a number of units of condominium at Venice Hill Condominium.
[6] The Defendant also owns one unit of condominium at Venice Hill Condominium. The Defendant was a committee member of the management corporation of Venice Hill Condominium ("Management Corporation"). The 3rd Plaintiff was elected as the treasurer of the Management Corporation but later resigned due to disagreements with the Defendant.
[7] The 10th general meeting of the Management Corporation was fixed on 31 July 2022 ("MC 10"). The 1st Plaintiff, 3rd Plaintiff, 5th Plaintiff and 6th Plaintiff wanted to offer themselves as candidates. The Defendant did not offer herself for re-election but had campaigned for an opposing camp.
[8] Following the events relating to MC 10, the Plaintiffs commenced a defamation suit against the Defendant for the impugned statement authored and published by the Defendant on 28 July 2022 in three WhatsApp groups comprising the owners of Venice Hill Condominium:
(a) The WhatsApp group named "Tower 8 VH Residents" with 141 participants;
(b) The WhatsApp group named "Visione 2030 (VH@1-9)" with 168 participants;
(c) The WhatsApp group named "Venice Hill Owners" with 115 participants.
[9] The impugned statement is reproduced as below:
"The Lim family and Team contesting for MC 10
1. Lim Heng Loong or Sam
(is the father of Lim jit haw) Lim Thung XUAN the daughter of Sam is nominating Lim Heng Loong or Sam a non owner/resident as MC candidate.
2. Lim Jit Haw MC 9 (son of Sam Lim Heng Loong)
3. Jonathan Lee Zhing Yong MC9 (staff of Lim Heng Loong/Lim Jit Haw)
4. Lucas Peh Ji Fong (brother of Sally Peh Chen Woon/brother in law of Lim Jit Haw)
5. Sally PEH Chen WOON
(Daughter-in-law of Lim Heng Loong/fiance of Lim Jit Haw and sister of Lucas Peh Zi Fong)
6. Seah Kok Boom (Steven) MC 7
7. Mohd Hairul Amri bin Mohd Redzuan MC 7, 8, 9
8. Lee Kooi Lan (staff of Lim Heng Loong)
9. Lai Chee Loong (Marcus) MC 7, 9
10. Cheong See Fatt (Danny) MC 9
Everyone, the first 5 members are literally members of 1 family. Some owners were suggesting owners who don't stay in VH should not become MC member.
Here we have a non owner/resident nominated as MC candidate, where is the logic in this.
Why is this family so desperate wanting to become MC candidate, just because they OWN almost 10 units as family or So that they can have the control on our finances and start with Projects?
Or what?
Everyone,
One member of this family is good enough as MC candidate not 5 of them including their staff.
At this moment we have RM2.5 mil in our maintenance fee Don't come in just to do projects in the name of making VH into a better living environment.
MC member being elected should have in mind the interest community at large and spend owners Money wisely.
MC should not raise Our maintenance fees and spend our money saying we can turn around VH in 3 yrs time.
Our property price will increase by then and so on.
Most of the owners are here to stay and not planning to sell our property.
Who is going to suffer in long run?
It's the Good paying owners who will suffer when maintenance fee are increased.
Please choose your MC members wisely.
MC should not be run by ONE family and their
